Meredith Mayes Annotation #4 10/14/11
Split Estate 1091 words
Split Estate is a documentary directed by Debra Anderson in 2009. It is a film on the abuse of mineral rights in Colorado and the results of fracking and natural gas extraction on the populations within the state. The film aims for an emotional appeal, mainly interviewing residents from various backgrounds on how the natural gas industry has caused them both physical and emotional pain. Home videos on the effects of the natural gas extraction also leant to the flow of the narrative. There was little in the ways of scientific insight in the film, due to the lack of information provided by the natural gas companies.
A wide variety of problems compounds the issue. First off, the companies involved refuse to divulge what is in the fracking fluid – and government regulations allow this. Many of the pollution laws in the United States exempt oil and natural gas companies from environmental regulations, which these companies evidently abuse. These companies hold a large amount of power and can grease the political wheel, since a corporation is a person in the eyes of the government. Next, Colorado has always been a mining state, and as such, 85% of the land’s mineral rights are not held by landowners. This means that even if landowners do not want a natural gas extraction on their land, companies can negotiate with the local government to drill there, regardless of the whims of the property owners. An additional consequence of this is that the evaporation ponds can sit very close to people’s properties. The name evaporation pond was portrayed as an irony, as none of the water really seemed to evaporate; it just seemed to sit there like a toxic pool, which is an obvious ecologic hazard. There are also economic benefits to this situation, which further muddies the waters. A large amount of short-term profits for both the natural gas companies and thus the United States as a whole prevents a desire to really investigate the severity of the situation. Should the process be found to be harmful, millions of dollars from the industry would be detracted as wells would have to be retrofitted with new technology or shut down all together.
Overall, the film was very compelling. My biggest complaint was the lack of hard scientific evidence, although the writers were hampered by the lack of information provided by the companies; however, productions and rises in cancer could have been compared, in addition to searching out a laboratory willing to do an investigation on at least the components of the fracking fluid. The film provided an abundance of convincing evidence despite this setback. One of the most heartbreaking was the man who had lived on a farmstead for generations, and his family cemetery was destroyed against the contract he had signed with the natural gas company. Now, he has no idea where his ancestors lie. The film also adequately showed how jarring the extraction wells looked next to farms. One home video also demonstrated how the leaks can affect local rivers, when one family found their creek bubbling and flammable. There were also several firsthand accounts of illnesses as reported by families who had oftentimes moved away from the homes they loved due to their deteriorating health. Another compelling piece of evidence was the steadfast denial of the executives of the presence of harmful emissions, and the infrared camera revealing the emissions of VOCs.
The film does its best to appeal to a wide range of audiences, most specifically neighborhood-oriented adults. Debra Anderson seems to specifically target people who wish to live someplace beautiful or own their own house and showing how that dream could potentially be taken away. The film also obviously addresses environmentalists by demonstrating the negative impacts of fracking on humans and the earth. The film could definitely have used more statistics on natural gas and its properties. If such facts were unavailable, other countries may not have such stringent secretive measures on their natural gas production methods. There is also very little offered in the way of solutions. The most obvious is a change of American policy exempting oil and gas companies from doing toxicity testing and forcing them to meet pollution standards. An additional solution is decreasing dependence on natural gas. If mineral rights were restored to the owners of land, unwanted drilling could end in Colorado. Awareness of the issue and spreading the word could also enhance the success of spreading the problem, as New York is trying to currently do.
Some tests have since been run on wells in areas potentially contaminated by hydraulic fracturing. One well in Wyoming was found to contain benzene in a concentration over 1500 times a safe level. Investigations since the 2004 EPA study asserting the safety of hydraulic fracturing have turned up inconsistencies within the original study itself in addition to the methodology. Some harmful information was neglected from the conclusion of the study which helped exempt hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act. The secrecy of the composition of fracking fluid makes it impossible to determine the source of the contamination. This contamination has been occurring in counties so rural there are no other industries to blame. The lack of direct evidence continues to impede the push forward to at least limit natural gas drilling. The article goes on to summarize much of what the film stated, homes exploding from gas pressure in the pipes, benzene in well water hospitalizing people. Some states updated their regulations despite the industry suing on nearly every measure for improvements. The article was written by Abrahm Lustgarten for propublica, found here: http://www.propublica.org/article/buried-secrets-is-natural-gas-drilling-endangering-us-water-supplies-1113#colborn_correction. I wanted more current information as well, since the previous article was written in 2008. The Energy Department has sent out a team to consider the risks of hydraulic fracturing. Currently, the disclosure of chemical composition and use of “best practices” for well casings are still a voluntary procedure. The week of August 12th, 2011 this team reported that the gas companies pose a high risk for serious environmental damage without set standards (found at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-18/natural-gas-fracking-rules-considered-by-u-s-agency-for-federal-lands.html). The final opinion of this panel was that the law needed change, since there was no advantage to the secrecy of the chemicals, and that more information was greatly needed to evaluate the true problems brought on by natural gas fracking (found here: http://www.grist.org/natural-gas/2011-08-11-doe-panel-calls-for-more-study-of-fracking-emissions) The Internation Energy Agency also released a report claiming that should natural gas usage rise to the estimated 25% of energy needs, world temperatures would likely rise 3.5 degrees Celsius (found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/06/natural-gas-climate-change-no-panacea).
Split Estate 1091 words
Split Estate is a documentary directed by Debra Anderson in 2009. It is a film on the abuse of mineral rights in Colorado and the results of fracking and natural gas extraction on the populations within the state. The film aims for an emotional appeal, mainly interviewing residents from various backgrounds on how the natural gas industry has caused them both physical and emotional pain. Home videos on the effects of the natural gas extraction also leant to the flow of the narrative. There was little in the ways of scientific insight in the film, due to the lack of information provided by the natural gas companies.
A wide variety of problems compounds the issue. First off, the companies involved refuse to divulge what is in the fracking fluid – and government regulations allow this. Many of the pollution laws in the United States exempt oil and natural gas companies from environmental regulations, which these companies evidently abuse. These companies hold a large amount of power and can grease the political wheel, since a corporation is a person in the eyes of the government. Next, Colorado has always been a mining state, and as such, 85% of the land’s mineral rights are not held by landowners. This means that even if landowners do not want a natural gas extraction on their land, companies can negotiate with the local government to drill there, regardless of the whims of the property owners. An additional consequence of this is that the evaporation ponds can sit very close to people’s properties. The name evaporation pond was portrayed as an irony, as none of the water really seemed to evaporate; it just seemed to sit there like a toxic pool, which is an obvious ecologic hazard. There are also economic benefits to this situation, which further muddies the waters. A large amount of short-term profits for both the natural gas companies and thus the United States as a whole prevents a desire to really investigate the severity of the situation. Should the process be found to be harmful, millions of dollars from the industry would be detracted as wells would have to be retrofitted with new technology or shut down all together.
Overall, the film was very compelling. My biggest complaint was the lack of hard scientific evidence, although the writers were hampered by the lack of information provided by the companies; however, productions and rises in cancer could have been compared, in addition to searching out a laboratory willing to do an investigation on at least the components of the fracking fluid. The film provided an abundance of convincing evidence despite this setback. One of the most heartbreaking was the man who had lived on a farmstead for generations, and his family cemetery was destroyed against the contract he had signed with the natural gas company. Now, he has no idea where his ancestors lie. The film also adequately showed how jarring the extraction wells looked next to farms. One home video also demonstrated how the leaks can affect local rivers, when one family found their creek bubbling and flammable. There were also several firsthand accounts of illnesses as reported by families who had oftentimes moved away from the homes they loved due to their deteriorating health. Another compelling piece of evidence was the steadfast denial of the executives of the presence of harmful emissions, and the infrared camera revealing the emissions of VOCs.
The film does its best to appeal to a wide range of audiences, most specifically neighborhood-oriented adults. Debra Anderson seems to specifically target people who wish to live someplace beautiful or own their own house and showing how that dream could potentially be taken away. The film also obviously addresses environmentalists by demonstrating the negative impacts of fracking on humans and the earth. The film could definitely have used more statistics on natural gas and its properties. If such facts were unavailable, other countries may not have such stringent secretive measures on their natural gas production methods. There is also very little offered in the way of solutions. The most obvious is a change of American policy exempting oil and gas companies from doing toxicity testing and forcing them to meet pollution standards. An additional solution is decreasing dependence on natural gas. If mineral rights were restored to the owners of land, unwanted drilling could end in Colorado. Awareness of the issue and spreading the word could also enhance the success of spreading the problem, as New York is trying to currently do.
Some tests have since been run on wells in areas potentially contaminated by hydraulic fracturing. One well in Wyoming was found to contain benzene in a concentration over 1500 times a safe level. Investigations since the 2004 EPA study asserting the safety of hydraulic fracturing have turned up inconsistencies within the original study itself in addition to the methodology. Some harmful information was neglected from the conclusion of the study which helped exempt hydraulic fracturing from the Safe Drinking Water Act. The secrecy of the composition of fracking fluid makes it impossible to determine the source of the contamination. This contamination has been occurring in counties so rural there are no other industries to blame. The lack of direct evidence continues to impede the push forward to at least limit natural gas drilling. The article goes on to summarize much of what the film stated, homes exploding from gas pressure in the pipes, benzene in well water hospitalizing people. Some states updated their regulations despite the industry suing on nearly every measure for improvements. The article was written by Abrahm Lustgarten for propublica, found here: http://www.propublica.org/article/buried-secrets-is-natural-gas-drilling-endangering-us-water-supplies-1113#colborn_correction. I wanted more current information as well, since the previous article was written in 2008. The Energy Department has sent out a team to consider the risks of hydraulic fracturing. Currently, the disclosure of chemical composition and use of “best practices” for well casings are still a voluntary procedure. The week of August 12th, 2011 this team reported that the gas companies pose a high risk for serious environmental damage without set standards (found at http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-18/natural-gas-fracking-rules-considered-by-u-s-agency-for-federal-lands.html). The final opinion of this panel was that the law needed change, since there was no advantage to the secrecy of the chemicals, and that more information was greatly needed to evaluate the true problems brought on by natural gas fracking (found here: http://www.grist.org/natural-gas/2011-08-11-doe-panel-calls-for-more-study-of-fracking-emissions) The Internation Energy Agency also released a report claiming that should natural gas usage rise to the estimated 25% of energy needs, world temperatures would likely rise 3.5 degrees Celsius (found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jun/06/natural-gas-climate-change-no-panacea).